Will attacking play break down as the World Cup moves to the knockout stage? Some coaches have warned this week that teams will take the aerial route because of the way the tackle area is being refereed.

The tackle area is the most contentious part of the game. The buildup to every tournament and match seems to be blighted by breakdown blather. Referee managers say how it is going to be, zero tolerance for players who go off their feet or come in from the side, but come the game it is like a Wild West shoot-out.

What has not helped is conflicting directives issued over the years. In the last World Cup, attacking teams were able to use the breakdown as a means of recycling; unless the ball carrier was isolated and forced to hold on, defending teams had little chance of forcing a turnover or gaining a penalty.

The International Rugby Board then adopted the experimental law variations, which were designed to speed the game up, but supplemented them with a directive to referees to have a zero-tolerance approach to attacking teams at the breakdown.

The board wanted to enhance the chance of the ELVs having a positive impact by encouraging defending teams to contest the ball at the breakdown and use turnover possession to attack disorganised defences. The intention was laudable, but as soon as coaches realised that ball-carrying carried risk, they ordered players to kick rather than risk conceding a penalty and the result was aerial ping-pong.

The directive was relaxed after a few months having not only backfired but also, in the northern hemisphere, having hardened attitudes against the ELVs. And now, it seems, the breakdown has returned to the way it was four years ago. Defending teams are often reluctant to commit players to the breakdown, preferring to fan out behind. Space is at a premium and the main risk for attacking teams, as South Africa found against Wales, is going too wide too quickly with the risk of being outnumbered.

Why is it that the breakdown has come to work to either the advantage of the attacking or the defending side? The opening round contained numerous incidents of attacking players diving into a ruck or entering from the side without being blown up.

What happened to the pre-tournament insistence that referees would make sure that players stayed on their feet and blow them if they went to ground? It may be significant that Romain Poite, who controlled Samoa's victory over Namibia on Wednesday, did not give the attacking side carte blanche, but if defending teams decide that as they have little chance of winning the ball they will not contest the breakdown, games will become trials of strength.

The former New Zealand international referee Kelvin Deaker said this week that referees were being too lenient with the ball-carrying team. "The biggest trend we have seen develop is that defending sides are not even competing for the ball at the tackle because they have no chance of winning a turnover."

Sport is about contrasts. What marred the 2007 World Cup, after the elimination of New Zealand by France, was that none of the semi-finalists showed any attacking intent. France were the one hope, but they tried to match England kick for kick after giving it a go against the All Blacks.

If next month's semi-finalists are Australia, New Zealand, England and South Africa, there would be a difference in style. The Wallabies and the All Blacks thrive on quick ball, but they also appreciate that turnovers provide the best attacking ball and have two of the most larcenous breakaways in the game: David Pocock and Richie McCaw.

South Africa have Heinrich Brussow but England have not chosen an openside specialist in their squad. Lewis Moody has played at seven for most of his career, but he is not a fetcher in the mould of the three above, or the Wales captain Sam Warburton.

To counter England, and South Africa, teams need to be able to force turnovers. Latitude at the breakdown should be given neither to the attacking side, nor the defending one, but with coaches quick to take remedial action against anything they see as carrying an element of risk, balance is proving elusive and the pendulum keeps swinging.